Just another WordPress.com weblog

Kevin Rutan: That Other Guy

Everyday, a fusillade of messages hits us. TV, radio, billboards and all kinds of ads fill every niche of the day, popping up on every page of the newspaper and following us home on coffee cups and shopping bags. These ads, wielding intense and potent messages, greatly affect everyone, except of course, us. We are in fact immune to media messages. It is the other people, those others out there in the world drooling on the couch, basking in the dull glow of the TV. They are affected. Like a drug, these messages completely and wholly affect, as if they were delivered with “hypodermic needles” (Lecture 2/11). This is of course, the “third person effect” (Davison 1). More often than not, we think of ourselves as better than others, leading to this effect and to a general ideology in regards to the media. Essentially, people “tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behaviors of others” (Davison 2).
In relation to voting, this very idea of media influence is discussed in the news with great concern placed on elections. The consensus being that more positive coverage of a candidate draws support from the public because people want to be part of the majority, “people influence each other’s willingness to express opinions” (Glynn and McLeod 732). This general need to feel accepted is entitled the “spiral of silence,” which essentially states that people in the minority are less likely to voice their opinions and in contrast those of the majority are likely to become very talkative (Glynn and McLeod 732). Obviously, this spiraling effect creates an atmosphere of conformity, but not everyone falls in line. Withstanding the change, there are the “hardcore” supporters (Glynn and McLeod 734). These rigid, independent thinkers put quite a speed bump in the hypothesis’ development.
Essentially, the hypothesis addresses the “average” person’s aptitude for attitude change, but when exceptions are thrown in it makes it difficult to define average (Glynn and McLeod 734). Scientifically, average would intrinsically include all subjects. Making an exception within the sample automatically makes the remainder deviate from the very definition of average. This leads the “model to overstate the degree of “silencing” that is likely to occur” (Kennamer 159).
In contrast, the theory does lend insight to the “media’s role in maintaining the status quo” (Kennamer 159). Even with and exaggerated amount of “silencing,” it is clear that a substantial amount does occur. Examining a correlation between public opinion and the media, for example, shows that when the public wants the status quo, it gets it 76% of the time (Lecture 2/9). Although this relationship is between the policy makers and the people, the communication between the two is mediated by mass communications. The news media finds out what the public is thinking and it informs policy makers.
Clearly, the news media is a ubiquitous, puissant entity, influencing the world with its messages and ads. The existence of this influence “is incontestable,” but its degree is not (Kennamer 159). Determining the effect of the media poses zounds of scientific hurdles. It is not only a massive enterprise, but a constantly evolving one as well. Additionally, the multiplicities of its message portrayals are “subtle and veiled,” creating an increasingly confusing idea (Kennamer 159). With boundless bloggers, internet pioneers and constant media convergences it is impossible to monitor how much media the public consumes. Without that knowledge, the degree of its influence will remain out of reach.